Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2015]JRC191

Royal Court

(Samedi)

18 September 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Elliot Adam Jones

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Jones and the victim had been in a relationship for nearly three years and had a 16 month-old daughter.  On the relevant night the child was staying elsewhere.  The couple spent the early part of the evening socialising, separately, with friends.  They met up later in a nightclub.  When they left the nightclub they were under the influence of alcohol, Jones more so.  Soon after arriving home they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse.  Intercourse became painful and the victim asked Jones to stop, which he did immediately.  The victim went to the bathroom, where she locked herself in.  Jones followed the victim; finding the doors locked he demanded to be let in.  The victim described his demands as being delivered 'in a really taunting way, like something from a horror film.'  Jones then attempted to get in to the bathroom by kicking the doors, striking them with a sheathed Samurai sword, then unsheathing it and trying to prise the locks open before hacking at the doors, the blade penetrating through to the bathroom on one occasion.  The victim screamed for help and telephoned Jones' brother who lived nearby.  When police arrived the brother was outside the house.  An officer spoke with the victim at the bathroom window and asked her to come downstairs, which she did.  The victim appeared very emotional and distressed by the incident.  Jones was arrested without incident and was co-operative on interview, however he had difficulty explaining his behaviour. 

Details of Mitigation:

Jones had the benefit of an early guilty plea, which the Crown had accepted, offered on a basis that he had not intended the victim any harm but had been reckless as to putting her in fear.  No previous convictions, residual youth.  Expressed great remorse and embarrassment over the incident, which in all likelihood will have lost him his 'dream job' as a care worker.  Against all that he was apparently very drunk at the start of the incident. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Exclusion Order sought excluding the defendant from licensed premises of 1^st, 4^th, 5^th or 7^th category excluding the Multiplex Cinema, Opera House, Arts Centre, Jersey Airport and the ferry terminal at Elizabeth Harbour for a period of 12 months from date of sentencing.

Forfeiture and destruction of the Samurai sword sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Crown's conclusions granted, save that no Exclusion Order made. 

The Social Enquiry Report and a very supportive letter from the victim showed that the couple's relationship had been very good until this incident.  The victim had given no reason for locking herself in the bathroom but had described having occasional 'episodes' which were taken to be incidents of low mood. 

No Exclusion Order made.

Forfeiture and destruction of the Samurai sword ordered. 

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of grave and criminal assault on his partner at their house.  Both had been drinking and on the way home had discussed their intention to engage in sexual activity when they got home; something the victim knew might be painful due to a medical condition, but she wanted to please the defendant and was happy to engage in sexual activity, which they did.  It did become too painful and she asked the defendant to desist, which he did immediately.  She pushed him off her and he slipped off the bed.  She then ran into the bathroom, locking herself in.  She told the police she was absolutely terrified.  She then heard the defendant saying he was coming in to get her in a really taunting way; he kicked the door several times and then attacked the door with a samurai sword given to him by the victim as a present, firstly sheathed and then unsheathed, causing considerable damage. 

2.        The victim opened the bathroom window and started screaming for help; she also telephoned her brother.  A neighbour heard the screams and called the police.  When the police arrived they saw the defendant carrying a long bright implement by his side. 

3.        There are two aspects of this case which it is important to note:-

(i)        Firstly the Crown have accepted the defendant's guilty plea on the basis that he did not intend to harm the victim but was reckless as to putting her in fear;

(ii)       Secondly, the victim has said that their two-year relationship had been good, particularly good prior to the offence, and she disclosed experiencing episodes, taken to mean low moods, which she may have been experiencing when she entered the bathroom. 

She has given no real explanation as to why she initially locked herself in the bathroom.  The defendant had immediately desisted from sexual activity when requested and had not, apparently, threatened her in any way.  She has not written a victim statement; indeed she has written a very glowing letter of support for the defendant. 

4.        The defendant told the police he was confused as to why the victim had locked herself in the bathroom and was concerned as there was a history of self-harm.  He heard her shouting for help and thought she wanted help from him.  It was as if, he said, she had flicked a switch.  He accepted however that his actions made the situation worse and would have put the victim in fear of her safety. 

5.        The defendant has no previous convictions and has the benefit of residual youth.  This conviction may put paid to his chosen career as a carer.  He has been assessed at a low risk of reoffending and for all these reasons the Crown have moved for a sentence of community service and probation. 

6.        There is very substantial mitigation for the defendant including his guilty plea, his good character, and the continued glowing support, as we have said, from the victim.  She says he has a heart of gold, has never otherwise been aggressive, and has fully supported her through her own issues.  He is clearly a very good and loving father to their daughter. 

7.        We have no hesitation therefore in granting the conclusions of the Crown for an offence which was clearly completely out of character.  We think however that the 180 hours' community service is right, that is equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, because this incident did involve a weapon. 

8.        Turning to the sentence to be imposed, on Count 1 you will serve 180 hours' community service, which is the equivalent of 12 months' imprisonment, together with a Probation Order on the usual conditions together with a condition that you will undertake any programme or treatment that Probation Department recommend. 

9.        We are not going to impose an Exclusion Order.

10.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the sword. 

Authorities

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey 3^rd Edition.

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.

AG-v-Horn [2010] JRC 104.

AG-v-Lockhart [2011] JRC 025.

AG-v-Z [2014] JRC 012A.

Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders)(Jersey) Law 2001.

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons)(Jersey) Law 1998.